COL.  GEORGE  WASHINGTON  FLOWERS 
MEMORIAL  COLLECTION 


DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
DURHAM.  N.  C. 


PRESENTED  BY 

W.  W.  FLOWERS 


DI^^r^E  WORSHIP. 


PEEACHED  IN 

THE  SECOND  SUNDAY  AFTER  TEINITY, 

JUNE  9tli,  187Q. 

BY  THE  EECTOR 

RET.  ALFRED  A.  WATSOiV,  B.  D. 


PUBLISHED    BY  K,EQXJESX. 


WILMINGTON,  N.  C: 

J.  A.  ENGELHARD,  STEAM  POWEE  PRESS  PRINTER, 
JOUENAIi  BUILDINGS. 
1872. 


St.  Matthew,  IY:10.    Thoii  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God,  aud  Hini 
only  shalt  thou  serve. 

In  the  narrative  of  S.  Peter's  visit  to  Cornelius,  in  the 
2d  lesson  of  the  morning,^  it  is  said  that  upon  the  Apostle's 
entran«?e  \uio  the  centurion's  house,  "  Cornelius  met  him, 
and  fell  down  at  his  feet,  and  worshipped  him,"  Actsx:25. 
Had  the  text,  by  any  chance,  been  mutilated  at  this  point, 
so  as  to  omit  the  succeeding  verse,  it  might  have  been  sup- 
posed to  justify  the  falling  down  before  a  living  Apostle. 
But  even  so,  it  w^ould  not  follow  that  the  worship  of  an 
image,  as  for  example  of  the  iron  image  of  S.  Peter  at 
Rome,  would  be  justifiable ;  seeing  that  the  w^orship  of 
images  is  the  very  thing  forbidden  in  the  Second  Command- 
ment. But  providentially,  the  26th  verse  has  not  been  lost ; 
wherein  it  is  added,  ''But  Peter  took  him  up,  saying,  Stand 
up;  I  myself  also  am  a  man."  Wherefore  not  even  the 
living  Apostle — special  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  he  was — 
could  be  allowed  to  receive  such  homage  from  mortals. 
Again,  in  the  Apocalypse,  when  one  of  the  Seven  mighty 
Angels  had  been  sent  unto  S.  John,  that  Apostle  tells  us, 
Rev.  xix:io"I  fell  at  his  feet  to  worship  him,  and  he  said 
unto  me,  see  thou  do  it  not :  I  am  thy  fellow- servant  and  of 
thy  brethren  that  have  the  testimony  of  Jesus  :  w*orship 
God."    In  still  another  instance,  xxii:9  S.  John  having  fal- 

IThis  Sermon  was  prepared  for  the  2d  Sunday  after  Trinity,  and  is  the  third  of  a  series 
upon  the  subject  of  Divine  Worship. 


P33790 


4 


len  down  before  tlie  feet  of  liis  guide,  the  warning  is 
repeated  :  '-'See  thou  do  it  not." 

Mark  !  how  prostration  for  worship  before  a  living  Apostle 
is  forbidden  in  one  case,  and  how  the  same  act  of  homage 
before  angels  is  forbidden  in  the  others.  Mark  too,  the 
reason  assigned,  "  Worship  God.'"  It  is  the  prohibition  of 
such  homage  to  anything  not  God. 

But  in  this  last  instance  we  have  also  the  expression  of 
another  principle,  viz  :  The  duty  of  worshipping  all  that  is 
God.  So  s.Matt.ivno  "Thou  sUalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  Him  only  shalt  thou  serve. "- 

Resuming  to-day  the  subject  upon  which  I  have  twice 
addressed  you,  and  starting  from  one  central  Principle,  viz  : 

THE  SUPRE:\IE  dignity  and  obligation  or  DIVINE  WORSHIP, 

I  propose  to  make  the  lesson  of  to-day  two-fold,  viz  : 

First :  The  Duty  of  worshipping  all  that  is  truly  God. 

Second:  The  Sin  of  worshipping  what  is  not  God,  or  of 
worshipping  God  Himself  through  images. 

Let  me  remind  you  of  some  of  the  positions  taken  before. 
Distinguishing  Worship  from  prayer,  and  from  praise,  and 
from  communion  with  God,  I  defined  it  as  the  proper 
attitude — the  prostration — of  the  creature  before  his  creator  ; 
the  homage  due  to  God ;  its  source,  one  of  the  seven  gifts  of 
the  Blessed  Spirit,  Holij  Fear'-.  I  maintained  the  duty  of 
Worship  as  one  of  direct  Supreme  obligation,  a  duty  of  the 
very  first  class,  independent  of  ail  other  duties  or  states  of 
soul ;  not  so  much  an  expression  of  other  dutiful  conditions  of 
soul,  e.(j'.  Love,  or  Obedience,  as  a  duty  in  itself  ;  a  duty  on  its 
own  account ;  primarily  expressive,  howerer,  of  simple  Re- 
verence ;  an  acknowledgment  of  man's  subjection  and  of  God's 
Supreme  Royalty  ;  a  duty  binding  upon  all ;  due  from  all  capa- 
ble of  understanding  it ;  due  from  deaf,  dumb  and  blind  ;  from 
the  wicked  as  well  as  from  the  good  ;  due,  not  as  being  the 
occasion  of  receiving  anything  from  God  but  as  something  to 
be  done  by  us  Godward ;  the  obligation  to  which,  therefore, 

2TheVor(i  ti-ansrated  "seJ'i'e"  is  latreiisiis,  from  the  same  root  as  latria\\hic\\  is  used  for 
Diviiie  worship.  I  shall  use  the  word  "wdrship"  in  this  discourse  iu  its  popular  siguihcatiou, 
as  expressive  of  the  homage  paid  to  God  ;  Zoir/o,  not  (ZwZia.  ,  • 

SWl  en  (S  Matt.,  IV:10)  says  "TFors7«iJ"  the  quotation  is  from  (Deut.M:13)  where  the  ex- 
preS^is -/m"''  This  is  to  b«  distinguished  from  the  "Fear"  of  (T.  S.  John  l\  :18)  and 
to  be  identified  with  the  Fear  of  (Rev.  X\:4). 


5 


does  not  depend  upon  our  receptive  senses,  our  being  able  to 
see  or  bear,  but  upon  our  being  able  to  understand  and  do 
the  homage  required.  It  is  a  duty  to  be  rendered  not  only 
in  private,  but  in  public  also,  before  the  world  ;  a  tribute, 
whose  publicity  upon  all  duly  appointed  occasions,  is  a  mat- 
ter of  special  obligation  ;  from  the  public  rendering  of  which 
neither  blindness  nor  deafness  can  excuse  us ;  a  tribute  to 
be  paid  upon  the  whole  being,  and  all  that  belongs  to  it  ;  to 
be  expressed  by  humiliation  of  soul,  prostration  of  body, 
lifting  up  of  voice  and  offerings  of  property. 

I  maintain,  then,  that  this  duty  of  worship  is  the  most 
direct,  and  the  first  in  order,  of  all  our  duties  to  our 
Creator ;  in  time,  taking  precedence  of  even  Obedience. 
When  God  reveals  himself  to  his  creature,  the  first  decree  of 
nature  is,  Woeship  Him. 

But  this  obligation  of  worship  is  ver}^  much  undervalued, 
often  forgotten,  or  at  least  dismissed  to  a  place  in  the  scale 
of  duties  very  far  below  its  due.  Through  want  of  Faith — 
that  faculty  by  which  we  habitually  realize  the  existence  and 
the  presence  of  God — it  has  become  almost  impossible  for 
men  to  recognize  the  true  dignity  of  the  law  of  Divine 
Worship,  or  the  enormity  of  the  sins  committed  against  it, 
whether  by  refusing  God  the  worship  due  Him,  or  by  render- 
ing the  homage  which  is  the  exclusive  prerogative  of  the 
Creator,  to  or  through  a  creature.  It  has  become  hard  for 
you  and  me  to  understand  the  horror,  with  which  Irreverence 
on  one  side,  and  Idolatr}^  on  the  other,  are  treated  in  H0I3' 
Scripture,  or  the  severity  with  which  they  were  punished. 
We  have  ceased,  I  fear,  to  be  in  full  accord  with  Holy  Scrip- 
ture upon  this  subject. 

But  if  Holy  Scripture  be  the  word  of  God,  it  is  worth  our 
while  to  observe  how  it  exalts  this  duty  of  worship  ;  how  im- 
peratively it  demands  for  God  the  homage  due  Him,  and  at 
the  same  time  foibids  idolatry.  It  is  worth  our  while,  more- 
over, to  observe  how  rigidly  God  holds  man  responsible  for 
finding  out  Him,  the  true  God,  and  so  for  avoiding  the  pay- 
ment of  divine  honors  to  false  Gods.  This  demand  is  abso- 
lutely made,  whether  of  the  Heathen,  by  way  of  those  "invis- 


P33790 


G 


ible  things  of  God,"  wliicli  S.  Paul  affirms  miglit,  ''from  the 
creation  of  the  workl,  be  clearh^  seen,  even  His  Eternal 
Power  and  Godhead  ;  being  understood  bv  the  things  that 
are  made,"' Rom.  1:20 ;  or  of  Jews  and  Christians,  by  way  of 
that  Revelation  which  has  more  clearly  disclosed  Him. 
Heathen,  and  Jew  and  Christian  are  held  responsible  for 
finding  their  way  to  the  true  God  by  the  one  or  the  other  road. 

But  if  the  Heathen,  in  their  comparative  darkness, 
are  condemned  for  "  changing  the  gior}^  of  the  incor- 
ruptible God  into  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man," 
Kom.  i:23.  mucli  more  must  we,  with  all  the  light  of  Reve- 
lation upon  us,  be  guilty,  if  we  fail  to  find  and  to  worship 
God  as  He  is  revealed. 

There  are  theories  or  doctrines  which,  in  ordinarj'  parlance, 
may  be  said  to  affect,  either  no  practice  at  all,  or  only  inferior 
points  of  practice.  Not  so  those  which  concern  the  person 
of  God,  or  the  necessities  of  His  worship.  TJie  great  doc- 
trine taught  in  the  church,  at  this  period  of  the  ecclesiastical 
year,  is  an  illustration  of  this— the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 
Shallow  thinkers,  who  never  see  beyond  the  one  proposition 
before  them,  may  regard  this  doctrine  as  purely  abstract  and 
metaphysical.  But  when  the  Christian  comes  to  icorsJiip  his 
God,  he  finds  it  in  the  highest  sense  practical.  If  he  be 
tlioroughl}'  in  earnest;  he  cannot  worship  satisfactorily,  till 
this  question  be  first  settled.  It  is  not  merely — Has  God  a 
triple  personality  in  His  Nature  ?  But,  Is  Jesus  Christ  God  V 
Is  the  Holy  Spirit  an  actual  and  a  divine  Being  ?  dit'.si  I 
worship  Jesus  Christ  ?  JIuM  I  worship  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  or 
am  I  at  liherty  to  worship  either  V  Since,  if  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  be  revealed  to  us  as  God,  He  must  be  v\-orshipped  as 
God.  If  the  Holy  Ghost  be  a  personal  Being,  He  must  be 
worshipped. 

The  question  of  the  Trinity,  then,  so  far  from  being  an 
abstract  one — one  of  mere  religious  metaphysics — becomes 
one  of  the  very  highest  rank  of  practical  importance.  It  is 
in  effect,  either,  on  one  hand  Shall  we  refuse  to  God  the 
vrorship  which  before  all  other  duties  we  owe  Him  ?  or,  Shall 
vre  render  a  creature  the  homage  vdiich  God  retains  exclu- 


7 


sively  for  Himself,  and  so  be  guilty  of  tlie  fearful  sin  of 
Idolatry  ? 

We  cannot  afford  to  stand  neutral  on  this  question.  On 
which  ever  side  we  fail  to  recognize  the  truth  revealed,  we 
sin,  and  that  gravely.  If  the  Christ  be  revealed  as  God,  then 
the  Unitarian  who  denies  this,  or  does  not  believe  it,  and  so 
refuses  to  worship  Him,  is  guilty  of  refmimf  to  luorsldp  God, 
If  the  Christ  be  not  God,  then  the  Trinitarian,who  does  worship 
Him,  is  an  idolater.  There  is  no  avoiding  the  dilemma.  We 
must  either  worship  or  refuse  to  worship.  If  God  has  in- 
structed us  upon  this  very  point,  we  cannot  step  to  one  side 
and  throw  off  our  responsibility.  It.  is  one  of  those  awful 
responsibilities  put  upon  us  as  Christians,  under  the  light  of 
Eevelation,  which  we  cannot  escape,  but  which  I  am  per- 
suaded we  can  meet,  if  only  as  anxious  to  do  so  faithfully 
as  we  are  to  establish  political  truths,  to  solve  scientific 
questions,  or  to  understand  our  own  important  temporal  in- 
terests. 

I  will  not  now  go  into  the  full  argument  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  tlie  Trinity.  The  more  important  points  in  that 
question  we  considered  upon  Trinity  Sunday.  I  prefer  this 
morning,  as  a  sort  of  appendix  to  what  was  then  taught,  to 
show  how,  in  the  book  from  which  two  of  the  texts  are  taken 
— the  Apocalypse — (the  last  and  ripest  book  of  the  sacred 
canon) — the  dignity  of  the  Christ  is  recognized  as  Divine,  and 
is  distinguished  from  that  of  angels  ;  while  his  Sonship  and 
subordination  to  the  Father  are  not  overlooked ;  even  as  the 
same  two  great  diverging  yet  consistent  truths  are  taught 
by  the  Lord  Himself  in  the  Gospel. 

We  have  seen  how,  twice,  in  the  Apocalypse,  the  Apostle 
was  most  emphatically  forbidden  to  worship  even  one  of  the 
seven  great  Angels.  But  now  consider  how  our  Lord  is 
spoken  of  in  this  same  book  of  Eevelation,  so  watchful 
against  idolatiy. 

But  first :  Observe  the  opening  proclamation  in  the  name 
of  God  :  Rev.  i:s  "I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Beginning 
and  the  Ending,  saith  the  Lord,  which  is,  and  which  was, 
and  which  is  to  come,  the  Almighty."    Then— only  two 


8 


verses  after — vs.  lo,  ii.  "  I  was  in  the  Spirit  on  the  Lord's 
day,  and  heard  behind  me  a  great  voice,  as  of  a  trumpet, 
saying,  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  First  and  the  Last.  *  * 
"'^  V?.  12  And  I  turned  to  see  the  voice  that  spake  with  me. 
And  being  turned,  I  saw  vs.  is  one  like  unto  the  Son  of 
Man,  '-^  Vs.  17  And  when  I  saw  Him,  I  fell  at  his  feet  as 
dead.  And  He  laid  His  right  hand  upon  me,  saying  unto  me 
(this  time,  he  does  not  say,  See  thou  do  it  not,"  but,)  Fear 
not:  I  am  the  First  and  the  Last ;  I  am  he  that  liveth  and  was 
dead;  and  behold  I  am  alive  forevermore.  Amen  ;  and  have  the 
keys  of  Hell  and  of  Death."  He  who  had  been  dead,  pro- 
claims Himself  by  the  very  titles  by  which,  just  before,  the 
Almighty  had  proclaimed  Himself.  Or — shall  w^e  say — He 
who  was  the  Almighty,  is  identified  with  Him  who  had  been 
dead.  And  so,  this  remarkable  identification  of  titles  goes 
on  throughout  the  book.  Thus  xxi:5,  e,  i  "  He  that  sat 
upon  the  throne  said.  Behold,  I  make  all  things  new ;  and  he 
said  unto  me,  -  *  I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Beginn- 
ing and  the  End.  He  that  overcometh  shall  inherit  all 
things  ;  and  I  will  be  his  God."" 

Observe  the  style  royal  of  the  Epistles  from  the  Lord 
Christ  to  the  seven  churches  of  Asia.  To  the  angel  (or 
Bishop)  of  Ephesus  Rev.  ii:5  "  Remember, — or  /  will  re- 
move thy  candlestick."  vs. :  "  To  him  that  overcometh 
will  I  give  to  eat  of  the  tree  of  life."  To  the  angel  of 
Smyrna,  vs.  s  "  These  things  saith  the  Fiest  and  the 
Last,  which  was  dead,  and  is  alive."  vs.  lo  ''Be  thou 
faithful  unto  death,  and  I  will  give  thee  a  crown  of  life." — 
To  the  angel  of  Thyatira,  vs.  23  "  All  the  churches  shall 
know  that  I  am  He  which  Searcheth  the  eeins  and  hearts."* 
To  the  angel  of  Laodicea,  ni:2i  "  To  him  that  overcometh 
will  I  grant  to  sit  with  me  in  my  throne,  even  as  I  also 
overcame,  and  am  set  down  with  my  Father  in  His  throne. 

Sonship,  yet  Divinity — Subordination,  yet  Divine  Powder 
and  Authority,  community  of  titles  and  of  throne. 

In  the  fifth  chapter  it  is  written  v.c,  "Lo,  in  the  mibst  of 

4Compare  with  this  the  title  given  by  S.  Paul  to  God,  (Rom.  VIII:27)  ''He  that  searcheth 
ihe  hearts,"  or  the  expresriou,  (2  Chron.  VI:3a)  Thou  {Cod)  only  l-nowest  the  hearts  of  th" 
chii'iren  of  ynen.'^ 


9 


the  throne  (of  God)  and  (in  the  midst)  of  the  four  beasts,  (or 
living  creatures)  -  stood  a  Lamb  as  it  had  been  shiin." 
vs.  s  "And  the  four  beasts  and  four  and  twenty  elders  fell 
down  hefove  the.  Lamb,'' —{the  very  thing  prohibited  to  8. 
John  before  the  Angel — upon  the  ground — "Worship  God.") 
vs.  13.  "And  every  ere  aturo  which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the 
earth,  and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea  and 
all  that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying  blessing,  and  honor,  and 
glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sitieth  upon  the  throne, 
and  2irito  tJie  Lnmb  forcA'er  and  ever." 

Can  any  man  imagine  that  a  creature  would  thus  be  joined 
with  his  God  ?  Cannot  men  see  that  the  worship  which  is 
demanded  for  Divinity  alone,  and  is  restricted  to  Divinity 
alone,  is  here  paid  by  the  whole  universe  and  by  Heaven 
itself,  to  the  Lamb,  conjointly  with  the  Father? — The  Lamb, 
who  is  in  cl^apt^.  xvii  and  xix  entitled  "  The  Word  of  God,'' 
"King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  Lords,"  and  who  is  described 
— "his  vesture  dipped  in  blood — his  eyes  a  flame  of  fire — 
Upon  his  head  many  crowns — The  Faithful  and  True." 

And  so  the  association  in  Power  and  Glory  goes  on.  The 
kings  of  the  earth  vino-i:.  call  to  the  mountains,  "  Fall  on 
us  and  hide  us  from  the  face  of  Him  that  sitteth  on  the 
throne,  and'^  from  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb  ;  for  the  great  day 
of  his  wrath  is  come."  While  the  redeemed  cry  with  a  loud 
voice,  vii:in-ii.  "Salvation  to  our  God,  which  sitteth  upon 
upon  the  throne,  and^  unto  the  Lamb.    And  all  the  angels 

fell  before  the  throne  on  their  faces  and  worshipped 
God."  In  the  eleventh  chapter  it  is  written  (v.  15),  "  There 
were  great  voices  in  Heaven,  saying,  "The  kingdoms  of  this 
world  are  become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  His 
Christ;  and  He  shall  reign  forever.""  And  so,  xii:io  "I 
heard  a  loud  voice  saying  in  Heaven,  Now  is  come  salvation, 
and  strength,  and  the  kingdom  of  our  God,  and  the  power 
of  his  Christ."  Of  the  new  Jerusalem  it  is  said,  xxi:23.  "The 
glory  of  God  did  lighten  it,,  and  the  Lamb  is  the  light 
thereof."  "  "The  Lord  God  Almighty  and  the  Lamb  are  the 

5Those  lamiliar  with  the  lores  of  thi  Greek  Kai,  can  understand  how  in  these  passages 
and  in  those  which  follow,  "He  that  sitteth  upon  the  throne,''  may  be  the  sam''  with  Ihe 
Lamb,  and  how  in  the  latter  passage  O'lLlO),  God  and  the  Lamb  may  be  construed  in  appo- 
sition. 


10 


temple  of  it."  xxii:3.  "The  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  shall 
be  in  it."  And  as  the  Apocalyptic  vision  commences  with 
the  assumption  by  the  Lord  Christ  of  the  Divine  titles,  so  it 
ends  :  xxii:i2-i3-i6.  "Behold  I  come  quicMy  ;  and  my  reward  is 
with  me,  to  give  ever}'  man  according  as  his  work  shall  be. 
I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Beginning  and  the  End,  the 
First  and  the  Last."  "I,  Jesus,  have  sent  mine  angel 

to  testify  unto  you  these  things."  "  I  am  the  Boot  and 
the  offspring  of  David." 

What  unintelligible,  inextricable  confusion,  if  the  Lamb  be 
not  God.  The  same  names  and  titles — not  only  the  same 
throne,  but  the  same  praises  and  homage — worshipped  as 
God  is  worshipped,  and  as  angels  are  not  allowed  to  be  wor- 
shipped. If  the  Lamb — if  the  Christ — be  not  God,  then 
is  there  no  meaning  in  the  absolute  and  exclusive  command, 
"  Thou  sliolt  u-orship  the  Lord  thy  God,  and  Him  only  shalt 
ikoic  serve.''    It  is  broken  in  Heaven  itself. 

And  observe  in  all  that  has  been  cited  from  the  Apoca- 
lypse, its  entire  harmony  with  what  the  Lord  Himself  taught 
of  Himself  during  His  human  life.  s.  joi.u  xiv:2>.  "  My  Father  is 
greater  than  I."  Yet,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  and 
viv:9.  ^'  He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Fathee."  So, 
also,  xii:45  and  xv:24  Again,  vi:3-.  "All  that  the  Father  givetli 
:!ne,"  yet,  xviiin.  "All  things  that  the  Father  hath  are  mine." 
y::o.  "  The  Sou  cau  do  nothing  of  Himself,"  [or  separately] 
yet  ''What  things  soever  He  [the  Father]  doeth,  these  also 
doetli  the  Son  likewise."  Observe  the  inseparability  and 
identity  of  the  Father  and  the  Son  as  one  God.  Those  who 
have  seen  the  one  have  seen  the  other,  and^what  the  one  does 
the  other  does.  Wherefore  again,  v:23-  "  That  all  men  should 
]ionor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father."  joim  i.-i 
comprehensively  declares,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word," — wherefore  His  past  Eternity  or  Eternal  genera- 
tion ; — "and  the  Word  was  v>'ith  God — wherefore  a  distinc- 
tion of  Persons; — "and  the  Word  was  God" — wherefore  His 
Divinity ;  in  all,  *'  God  of  God." 

SoNSHir,  it  is  true  ;  Derivation,  it  is  true  ;  Suboedination 
in  some  sense,  it  is  true.    But  true  also,  that  He  is  God, 


11 


and  Avorsliipped  in  Heaven  itself  as  God  ;  as  the  sharer  of 
the  Divine  titles  and  prerof^atives  ;  of  the  throne,  the  power 
and  the  authority  of  God. 

But  if  God,  how  can  mortal  man  refuse  Him  His  Divine 
honors  and  live  ?  If  all  Heaven  did  not  hesitate  to  fail 
down  before  Him  and  worship  Him,  what  shall  be  said  of 
the  sinful  man  who,  with  all  this  record  before  his  eyes,  yet 
refuses  to  worship  Him,  or  to  acknowledge  Him  as  God  ?  And 
what  shall  be  said  of  the  professed  worshipper  of  this  Lord 
of  lords,  who  yet  has  no  horror  for  the  system  which  denies 
to  his  Lord  the  homage  due  Him  ;  who  can,  with  his  mas- 
ter's own  divine  blood  sprinkled  upon  his  soul,  yet  regard 
without  indignation  and  alarm,  the  advances  of  a  system 
which  denies  the  Lord  who  thus  bought  him,  and  who  would 
with  no  misgivings  entrust  the  education  of  christian  children 
to  such  a  system  ?  Can  there  be  any  innocency,  anything  but 
fearful  sin  and  danger,  in  that  religious  Faith  which  in  the 
light  of  all  these  revelations  withholds  from  God,  the  Saviour^ 
the  worship  which  all  Heaven  renders?  Say  not  that  this 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  a  mere  metaphysical  position.  If 
it  be  false — I  say  it  again — we  Trinitarians  are  Idolaiers. — 
If  it  be  true,  no  words  could  express  the  horror  we  should 
have  of  Unitarianism.  I  do  not  speak  of  persons,  but  of  the 
doctrine.  God  be  thanked  that  they  vvho  have  so  fearful  a 
doctrine  may  in  despite  of  it  have  so  many  and  so  great  vir- 
tues. And  yet,  for  the  sake  of  the  doctrine  itself,  it  may  be 
vv^ell  to  remember  how  Holy  Scripture  through  S.  John,  that 
crentlest  of  the  Apostles,  2  s.  .Joim  10.  forbad  christians  in  his 
day  to  receive  into  their  houses  or  bid  God  speed  to  those 
who  brought  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Christ, 

But  if  in  proportion  to  the  great  duty  of  worship),  must  be 
the  sin  which  denies  the  Lord  and  so  refuses  God  the  Son 
the  worship  due  Him,  so  in  the  same  proportion,  must  be  es- 
timated the  sin  of  offering  to  that  vdiich  is  not  God,  the 
worship  which  belongs  to  God  alone. 

Yet,  as  I  said  before,  I  do  not  think  that  we  are  at  all 
awake  to  the  enormit}^  of  the  sin  of  idolatry.  Here  let  a 
distinction  be  observed.    Idolatry,  as  the  word  is  comnionly 


12 


used,  may  mean  either  the  worship  of  false  gods  or  the  wor- 
ship of  the  true  God,  by,  through,  or  under,  the  form  of  an  im- 
age. Etymologically^  it  is  more  strictly  the  latter,  yiz :  a 
worship  addressed  to  any  god,  false  or  true,  by  or  through 
a  visible  image  or  symbol.  We  should  not  escape  the  sin  by 
having  the  most  correct  ideas  of  the  Godhead,  if  worshipping 
that  Godhead  through  the  medium  of  an  image.  Nor  should 
we  escape  by  pleading  that  we  only  worship  the  invisible 
God  through  the  visible  image.  The  more  intelligent  heathen 
professed  to  worship  not  the  images  themselves,  but  an  in- 
visible Deity,  through  them,*  The  Second  commandment  is 
no  mere  explanation  of  the  First.  It  announces  a  distinct 
principle,  forbids  a  distinct  sin.  The  First  commandment  for- 
bids the  sin  of  recognizing  a  false  god,  in  whatever  way  wor- 
shipped, giving  the  glory  of  the  true  God  to  another.  The 
Second  prohibits  divine  worship  by  or  through  images  or  vis- 
ible representatio7is,  however  true  the  God  worshipped.  More 
especially  of  the  sin  against  the  Second  commandment,  is  it 
true,  that  even  we  Christians  fail  to  recognize  its  full  enor- 
mity. And  as  to  the  ivorMs  estimate,  what  great  wrong  do 
worldly  people  feel  to  be  in  it  ?  Foolish,  they  may  think  it, 
but  vicious  ?  not  at  all.  To  much  modern  theology,  the  sev- 
erity of  the  Mosaic  (and  therefore,  the  Divine)  law,  which 
put  the  guilty  to  death  for  idolatry,  and  with  exceptional 
rigor,  required  a  man  to  inform  against  his  guilty  brother, 
or  son,  or  daughter,  or  wile,  is  absolutely  unintelligible.  And 
if  the  positions  I  have  taken  with  respect  to  the  pre-eminent 
importance  of  divine  worship  be  incorrect,  then  it  is  difficult 
to  understand  those  laws.  But  it  was  precisely  because  God 
did  hold  and  meant  to  hold  the  woeship  due  Himself  to  be 
man's  preeminent  duty,  that  the  sins  of  which  I  speak  to-day 
were  rated  as  so  enormous.  Consider  how  for  the  sin  of 
idolatry  God  punished  the  Hebrews,  as  a  nation,  with  pesti- 
lences, invasions,  captivity,  death,  massacre,  national  de- 
struction ;  how  for  nine  hundred  years  He  scourged  it  after 

6  The  word  (eidolon)  means  a  visible  form. 

7  Arnobius,  adv.  Gentes  VI:10,  represents  his  Heathen  opponent  as  replj'ing  :  "We  do  net. 
think  either  the  brass  or  the  materials  of  gold  and  silver,  or  other  materials  of  which  imagt-r 
are  made  to  be  themselves,  per  se,  gods  and  sacred  deities  ;  but  in  them  we  worship  and  ven- 
erate those  whom  the  sacred  dedication  introduces  and  causes  to  dwell  in  the  images." 


13 


this  manner  on  every  occasion,  and  say,  how  can  we  in  the 
light  of  God's  own  historical  interpretation  of  His  own  com- 
mandments, regard  the  sin  of  idolatry  as  less  than  an  awful 
enormity  ?  However  our  natural  unsanctified  instincts  may 
shrink  from  these  estimates,  let  us  beware  how  we  criticise 
the  sacred  record,  or  sit  in  presumptuous  judgment  upon  the 
judgments  of  God.  There  were  not  only  more  humility,  but 
better  sense  also,  in  striving  to  correct  our  own  estimates  by 
those  of  Revelation,  and  in  learning  from  God's  wisdom  how 
sore  must  be  the  sin  which  is  against  either  the  Second  com- 
mandment or  the  First. 

But  let  me  remind  you  that  the  sin  against  the  Second 
commandment  was  not  that  of  worshipping  a  false  god,  but 
that  of  worshipping  any  God,  even  the  true,  through  the 
media  of  images.  God  did  not  permit  a  visible  image  even 
of  Himself,  or  that  the  Hebrews  should  worship  Him  by  the 
aid  of  an  outward  symbol.  "  Take  ye  good  heed  to  your- 
selves," was  His  warning  neut.  iv:i5.  "  for  ye  saw  no  manner 
of  similitude  on  the  day  that  the  Lord  spake  unto  you  in 
Horeb  out  of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  lest  ye  corrupt  yourselves 
and  make  you  a  graven  image."  The  sight  of  any  visible 
shape  was  withheld,  expressly  in  order  to  prevent  the  He- 
brews from  worshipping  the  God  of  Mt.  Horeb — the  true 
God — by  or  through  any  image  or  visible  symbol.  The 
specialty  of  the  Second  commandment,  delivered  upon  that 
very  occasion  was  the  prohibition  of  sj-mbol  worship.^ 

And  this  seems  to  me  to  constitute  the  great  practical  ob- 
jection to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  which  teaches 
that  God  the  Son  is  perpetually  upon  the  altars  of  His  church, 
and  is  to  be  worshipj^ed  there  under  a  creature  form  {siib 
specie  panis,  rt'c):  a  form  in  itself  as  insensible  and  unresisting 
as  was  ever  idol  of  wood  ;  whereof  part  could  be  used,  as  the 
prophet  argued,  to  heat  an  oven  and  to  bake  bread,  and  -puTt 
to  warm  oneself  withal,  is.  xliv:15-i9.  Even  so  may  the  bread 
of  the  Eucharist  be  consumed  or  put  to  base  uses.  The  proph- 
et's appeal  was  directly  and  positively  to  the  senses.    If  the 

8  The  worship  of  the  li\ing  Christ  could  constitute  no  exception  to  this  'aw,  for  He  was 
God  Himself,  not  a  symbol  of  God.  Bur  now,  the  Heaven  has  received  Him,  and  we  are 
told  that  it  must  receive  Him  "until  the  restitution  of  all  things,"  Acts  111:21. 


senses  could  not  be  depended  upon  in  the  one  case,  neithei 
could  they  be  depended  upon  in  the  other.  If  what  seems 
to  sight,  taste  and  touch,  bread  and  wine,  is  not,  but  is  only 
flesh  and  blood,  as  to  substance,  so  might  what  seemed  a 
wooden  idol,  be  under  its  apparent  accidents,  really  a  divin- 
ity. So  in  the  first  ages  of  Christianity,  the  fathers  of  the 
church  argued  with  their  heathen  adversaries  against  the 
T/orship  of  images.  "  Do  you  not  see  (writes  one)  that  these 
images  at  times  fall  into  ruins  from  the  constant  dropping  of 
rain  ?  In  this  case,  do  you  not  see  that  newts,  shrews,  mice, 
<fec.,  build  their  nests  and  live  under  the  hollow  parts?  Do 
you  not  see  sometimes  over  the  face  of  an  image  cobwebs 
and  treacherous  nets  spun  by  spiders,  that  they  may  be  able 
to  entangle  in  them  buzzing  and  imprudent  flies.  Blush  then, 
and  accept  the  ways  of  reason  from  dumb  creatures,  and  let 
these  teach  you  that  there  is  nothing  divine  in  images." — 

yl;7iotac«  advcrms  Gentes  vi:9.      But  what  if  tO    argumcuts  like  theSe, 

their  heathen  interlocutors  could  have  replied,  "  Do  you  not 
believe  that  piece  of  bread,  which  you  handle  and  break  as 
you  please,  to  be  the  The  Christ,  *'Body,  Soul  and  Divinity?" 
Core.  Trid.  Sess.  xiii,  Can.  I  and  IF.  Do  you  not  see  that  mice  and  in- 
sects do  sometimes  gnaw  it,  and  that  spiders  spin  their  webs 
and  catch  their  flies  upon  it  and  by  help  of  it,  or  that  if  it 
escape  such  casualties,  the  escape  is  due  to  your  human 
creature  precautions  and  care  of  it,  and  not  to  any  power  of 
its  own  to  repel  its  assailants  ?  Will  not  exposure  to  the 
weather  destroy  it  also  ?  And  if  kept  too  long  will  it  not 
turn  to  natural  corruption  ?  O  inconsistent  Christian  !  you 
vstultify  yourself  by  your  argument  against  our  gods."  Can 
it  be  that,Christians  believing  in  transubstantiation  and  prac- 
tising Eucliaristic  adoration,  would  have  assailed  idolatry 
v/ith  such  rash  arguments,  or  laid  themselves  open  to  such  a 
swift  reply?  Or  indeed  that  they  would  have  found  any 
such  difficulty  in  the  heathen  idea  of  Divinity  resident  in  idol 
forms  ?  But  in  either  case,  what  would  have  become  of  the 
Second  commandment  with  such  visible,  sensible  (yet  insen- 
sible, helpless)  images  or  symbols  of  the  Godhead  presented 
perpetually  for  worship  ? 


The  mere  theory  of  transubstantiation,  which  is  such  an 
undefined  horror  to  many,  seems  to  me  after  all  nothing  but 
a  metaphysical  subtlety  ;  in  its  concrete  form  contrary  to 
evidence,  and  in  some  respects  absurd  and  impossible;^  but 
of  little  consequence  if  it  could  remain  a  mere  theory.  As  a 
mere  theory,  it  would  be  only  another  chapter  in  theological 
metaphysics.  But  make  it  practical,  and  if  not  true,  the 
result  is  Idolatry.    [See  Appendix  A.] 

I  would  not  have  you  on  account  of  its  practical  conse- 
quences, reject  it,  but  because  it  is  not  metaphysically  true. 
I  hold  that  we  have  no  right  to  accept  or  reject  theories  oi 
doctrines  upon  the  ground  of  consequences,  or  upon  any 
ground  other  than  that  of  their  truthfulness  or  untruthful- 
ness. But  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  being  untrue, 
its  practical  mischief  manifests  itself :  First,  Avhen  it  under- 
mines the  miraculous  evidences  of  Revelation  ;  [See  Appen- 
dix A.  j  and  Second,  when  it  comes  into  conflict  with  the 
Second  commandment,  by  offering  for  our  worship  a  visible 
representative  of  the  invisible  God.  And  it  being  untrue,  all 
genuflexions  and  bowings  to  the  elements  or  specially  before 
the  elements,  as  ccntainin^j  the  Divine  presence,  become  of 
the  nature  of  idolatry-.  The  elements  are  to  be  treated 
resf)ectfully,  to  be  handled  and  received  reverently,  devout- 
ly, not  as  common  bread  and  wine,  but  as  the  sacramental 
body  and  blood  of  Christ  our  Lord  ;  to  be  received  by  v$ 
at  least,  upon  our  knees,  as  worshipping  God,  and  as  receiv- 
ing at  the  time  a  great  gift  from  God,  and  if  possible,  so  that 
of  the  consecrated  bread  no  crumbs  shall  fall  to  the  ground, 
to  be  trodden  under  footJ^  But  to  bow  down  to  the  elements 
or  before  them,  is,  1  fear,  nothing  less  than  the  awful  sin  of 
idolatry.  The  Lord  Christ  may  be  in  them,  or  behind  them, 
and  ma}-  of  course  be  worshipped,  but  not  through  them.  To 
do  so,  would  be  to  do  the  very  thing  forbidden  by  the  Second 
commandment.    They  are  still  creature  bread  and  "wine  and 

9  As  when  it  is  maiutained  that  accidents  cau  exist  separate  from  their  substance,  "So  that 
there  may  be  whiteness  and  nothing  white,  sweetness  and  nothing  sweet  "  S.  Ihomas  Aq. 
is  quoted  as  speaking  of  "form  detached  from  matter"  and  so  becoming  "a  form  intelligible 
by  action  and  intelligent."   Scudamore  Notitia  Euch.  p  834. 

10  Wherefore  it  is  better  that  the  bread  be  received  in  the  extended  palm  rather  than  be- 
tween the  lingers,  as  wc  would  take  any  indifferent  object. 


IG 


are  no  more  to  be  adored  than  was  S.  Peter  to  be  adored  b^' 
Cornelius,  because  Christ  was  not  only  literally  by  virtue  of 
His  Omnipresence  in  8t.  Peter,  but  was  moreover  specially 
in  His  chosen  Apostle,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So 
is  the  Omnipresent  God  present  in  every  graven  image  also. 
(See  Appendix  B. ) 

But  brethren,  do  not  I  pray  you,  misunderstand  me.  AYhen 
1  sa}',  there  may  be  a  special  presence  of  Christ  in  or  with 
the  elements,  I  do  not  mean  to  express  a  doubt.  I  believe 
the  He  is  so  really  though  spiritually  invisibly-,  and  myste- 
riously present  in  or  with  the  consecrated  elements,  that  he 
who  eats  or  drinks  unworthily  "is  guilty  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  the  Lord,"  and  "eats  and  drinks  condemnation," 
for  that  he  does  not  by  faith  discern  (in  them)  the  Lord's 
body.  1  Cor.  xi:2T-29.  Tliis  actual,  special,  spiritual  presence,  I 
believe  ;  because  I  believe  that  the  Lord  Himself  taught  it ; 
s.  John  vi:33-5i-5s.  bccause  I  belicve  that  S.  Paul  taught  it; 
1  Cor.  x:i6;  xi:27-29.  and  bccausc  all  cliristiau  antiquity  so  under- 
stood the  Aspostolic  doctrine,  and  therefore  in  turn  believed 
and  taught  it.  But  I  equally  believe  that  Christ  is  not  sensi- 
hhj  present  to  be  worshipped,  but  that  His  natural  body  is 
in  Heaven  and  must  there  continue  "till  the  time  of  the  res- 
tiiution  of  all  things,"  as  He  Himself  declares,  ''Me  ye  have 
not  always." 

Of  one  thing  we  may  be  confident,  viz :  That  the  first 
Christians  did  not  worship  the  elements,  or  w^orship  before 
them  as  before  an  incarnate  Christ.  Can  you  imagine  S. 
Paul  to  have  believed  that  the  elements  were  to  be  worship- 
ped or  God  worshipped  through  them,  and  never  in  all  his 
epistles  to  have  said  so  ?  Was  he  not  the  man  of  all  others 
to  claim  with  his  fiery  zeal,  this  honor  for  them  had  it  been 
their  due  ? 

Of  course  we  must  not  presume  to  dictate  to  Eevelation. 
But  seeing  that  God  has  given  us  reasons',  [see  Appendix  C.  ] 
in  order  that  we  may  understand  what  in  His  Pvevelation  He 
teaches  us,  learning  both  from  the  words  and  from  the 
silences  of  Holy  writ,  how  can  we  help,  if  really  anxious  not 
to  go  beyond  the  truth,  making  the  natural  inference  from 


\1 


the  silence  of  Holy  Scripture  here?  And  I  say  again,  that 
there  is  not  in  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  any  evidence 
whatever  of  Worship  paid  or  to  be  paid  to  or  through  the 
elements.  Of  their  belief  in  a  mysterious  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  sacrament,  so  as  to  call  the  bread  the  body  of 
Christ  and  the  wine  his  blood,  there  are  abundant  evidences; 
but  not  in  such  a  presence,  as  to  demand  or  justify  adoration 
to  or  before  the  elements. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  treat  such  subjects  satisfactorily 
within  the  limits  of  a  sermon.  But  I  have  striven  to-day  to 
do  my  duty  to  3'^ou,  by  indicating  two  great  contrasted  yet 
harmonious  laws  of  Christian  faith  and  practice, in  the  mat- 
ter of  divine  worship.  The  one:  that  which  requires  divine 
honors  for  all  that  is  God;  the  other,  that  which  prohibits 
divine  worship  to  or  through  outward  and  visible  symbols 
or  images.  I  desire  to  put  before  you  no  mere  notions  of 
my  own,  but  the  doctrine  of  that  branch  of  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  to  which  we  belong;  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostolic 
and  Ante  Nicene  Church.  I  would  take,  and  would  maintain, 
the  positions  thus  assigned  us,  with  no  doubt  or  hesitation 
indeed,  but  with  a  decent  and  modest  respect  for  the  opinions 
of  the  great  and  good  who  have  taught  differently.  And 
lastly,  I  feel,  and  desire  to  feel  the  awfulness  of  such  a  sub- 
ject, and  the  great  peril,  which  would  result  from  a  misstep 
in  guiding  you  among  such  doctrines. 

God  save  us  from  either  form  of  error;  and  while  keeping 
us  gentle  and  modest  toward  those  who  may  hold  either,  yet 
make  us  for  the  sake  of  God  and  of  the  truth,  uncompromis- 
ing in  our  hostility  to  the  errors  themselves,  that  we  may 
worship  the  Lord  our  God  according  to  the  commandment^ 
but  may  also  according  to  the  commandment,  bow  down  be- 
fora  no  image  or  symbol  graven  oy  otherwise. 


Let  me  explain.  I  distinguish  between  Transubstantiation 
as  2i  facti  or  physical  change,  and  the  doctrine  of  Transub- 
stantiation as  known  to  theology.  Transubstantiation  as  a 
fact,  is  perfectly  possible.  The  water  at  Cana  was  transub- 
stantiated into  wine.  Nay,  our  daily  food  is  daily  transub- 
stantiated into  the  materials  which  constitute  our  bodies. 
And  so,  the  bread  and  wine  which  our  Saviour  ate  and  drank 
while  on  earth,  was  transubstantiated  into  His  own  blessed 
body  and  blood. 

Nor  would  there  be  any  greater  difficulty  to  Divine  power, 
in  accomplishing  this  change  instantaneously,  and  by  the 
words  of  consecration,  than  in  effecting  it  by  the  intermediate 
process  of  digestion. 

But  this  is  not  the  whole  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  ; 
which  teaches  that  in  the  Eucharist,  this  change  occurs 
without  any  corresponding  trans-accidentation ;  that  the 
accidents  of  the  bread  and  wine,  i.  e.  the  taste,  color,  form, 
odor,  and  effect  upon  the  touch,  remain  ;  but  that  the  bread 
and  wine  are  nevertheless  gone  ;  and  that  what  still  seems 
bread  and  wine,  is,  after  the  consecration,  nothing  but  real 
flesh  and  blood  under  the  appearance  cf  bread  and  wine  ; 
that  it  is  God  the  Son  visibly  present,  under  the  form  of 
bread  and  wine,  and  as  such,  to  be  worshipped. 

If,  indeed,  the  elements  after  consecration,  assumed  the 
appearance  or  taste  of  flesh  and  blood,  as  the  water  at  Cana 
assumed  the  appearance  and  taste  of  wine,  and  as  the  food 
our  Saviour  att?  and  drank  assumed,  not  only  the  reality  but 
the  appearance  also,  of  flesh  and  blood  in  His  sacred  body,  we 


19 


could  have  no  difficulty  in  accepting  the  doctrine.  But  now 
our  senses  contradict  it.  God  seems  to  testify  to  us  by  our 
eyes  and  other  senses,  which  He,  the  author  of  Faith  and 
Revelation,  has  bestowed  upon  us,  that  it  is  not  so.  And 
therefore  we  reject  the  doctrine,  because  the  supposed/ac^ 
of  Transubstantiation  is  not  sustained  by  the  corresponding 
fact  of  trans-accidentation,  hy  tvhicJi  alone,  the  former  could 
he  proven  to  our  present  menial  organization.  Not  that  we 
question  the  poiver  of  God,  to  change  the  substance,  but 
cause  the  flesh  and  blood  to  retain  the  appearance  and  other 
accidents  of  bread  and  wine.  The  difficulty  is  not  in  any 
doubt  of  the  power  of  God,  but  in  the  want  of  evidence  to  us, 
that  God  chooses  to  make  such  a  change  ;  or  perhaps  more 
accurately,  in  the  evidence  which  God  d^es  give  to  our 
senses,  that  He  has  not  made  it,  and  that  we  are  misinter- 
preting His  word,  in  supposing  such  a  change  intended  by 
the  expressions  of  that  word.  It  is  said  that  we  must  move 
by  Faith  in  this  matter,  and  be  ready  to  believe  the  evidence 
of  the  word  of  God  against  the  evidence  of  our  senses ;  that 
our  senses,  after  all,  report  only  accidents,  and  cannot  reach 
the  substance.  To  this  it  must  be  replied,  1st,  That  the  very 
point  in  dispute  is  whether  the  word  of  God  does  teach  this 
doctrine  ;  whether  this  is  the  meaning  ;  whether  it  is  not 
more  reasonable  to  understand  the  evident  fact  as  interpre- 
ting the  written  word,  than  to  suppose  the  written  word 
to  contradict  the  evident,  or  apparently  evident  fact,  more 
especially  since  2dly,  The  stoutest  advocates  for  a  literal 
interpretation  yet  resort  to  a  figurative  one,  when  they 
explain,  ''This  citp  is  the  Neio  Testament  iii  'my  blood/' 
to  refer  to  the  contents  of  the  cup. (a)  But  3rdly,  That 
thus  to  object  the  evidence  of  the  senses,  is  to  reject  the 
evidence  of  miracles,  and  of  Revelation  itself.  Miracles 
appeal  to  the  senses.  If  the  evidence  of  the  senses 
that  the  bread  is  still  bread,  cannot  be  relied  on,  neither 
could  the  evidence  of  the  senses,  that  at  Cana,  the  water 
was  really  changed  into  wine,  be  relied  on.  Transubstanti- 
ation is  alleged  upon  the  authority  of  Revelation.  Revela- 

(a).  Or  as  when  our  Lord  says  '*  /  mi  the  true  viw^,  "  wc  do  not  understand  a  literal  vine 
twith  wood  and  bark,  but  ex  necessitate  rei,  give  a  figurative  iutei-pretation. 


20 


tion,  (so  far  at  least  as  ooncerns  the  disclosure  of  fads  or 
phenomena  hidden  from  direct  human  observation,  and 
appealing  to  no  inner  consciousness,  so  far  at  least,  Revela- 
tion) rests  upon  the  evidence  of  miracles.  Miracles  are 
proven  upon  the  evidence  of  the  senses.  The  doctrine  of 
Transubstantiation  which  denies  the  credibility  of  the  evi^ 
dence  of  the  senses,  or  at  least  its  reliability,  in  so  doing, 
destroys  its  own  evidence.    It  is  a  case  of  doctrinal  suicide. 

Of  course,  the  same  argument  would  not  apply  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Eeal  Presence,  or  even  to  that  of  Consub- 
stantiation  ;  neither  of  which  deny  the  continued  existence 
of  the  bread  and  wine. 

I  would  not  be  willing  to  say,  that  for  the  reasons  given, 
Transubstantiation,  even  if  true,  covld  not  he  proven  at  all  / 
but  only,  that  its  proof  would  require  other  evidences  than 
have  ever  yet  appealed  to  man,  even  in  behalf  of  Revelation 
itseK ;  and  probably  higher  than  any  which  his  present 
mental  organization  is  capable  of  receiving.  As  man  is  at 
present  organized,  God  has  not  yet  chosen  to  make  it  possible  to 
prove  to  him  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  Wherefore  for 
this  as  for  other  reasons,  we  do  not,  and  are  persuaded  that 
we  cannot,  rationally  believe  it. 


APPENDIX  B 


I  have  not  before  me  the  means  of  verifying  the  following 
quotations  from  the  Notitia  Euch.,  of  Sciidamore;  but  if 
correct,  they  evidently  teach  a  worship  of  the  elements, 
and  not  merely  of  God  behind  them,  p.  550,  "The  Eoman 
rubric  orders  the  Priest  to  lift  the  Host  on  high,  and  with 
eyes  fixed  upon  it,  (which  he  is  to  do  also  in  the  elevation  of 
the  cup)  reverently  to  shoio  it  to  the  people  to  he  ic  or  shipped'' 
So  that  what  is  luor shipped,  is  that  which  is  shown.  Again, 
p.  &19.  The  decree  of  the  Synod  of  Exeter,  A.  D. ,  1287. 
"Because  by  these  words,  'This  is  my  Body,'  and  by  no 
other,  the  bread  is  transubstantiated  into  the  Body  of 
Christ,  let  not  the  Priest  elevate  the  Host  until  he  has  fully 
brought  out  those  words,  lest  the  creature  he  luorshipped  by 
the  people  J  or  the  Creator.'"  Similarly,  the  Statutes  of  Noyon 
forbid  the  elevation  above  the  breast  before  the  words  of 
consecration,  ''lest  the  honor  which  is  due  to  the  Creator 
only,  be  rendered  to  that  which  is,  as  yet,  no  more  than  a 
creature." 

That  such  of  the  advanced  school  of  Eitualists  as  are  rep^ 
resented  by  Mr.  Bennett  of  Frome,  hold  substantially  the 
same  view,  seems  evident  from  Mr.  Bennett's  own  language  ; 
his  first  forms  of  expression,  as  to  the  "visihle  presence  of  our 
Lord  upon  the  altars.''  and  teaching  the  people  to  "adore  the 
consecrated  elements,"  being  capable  of  no  other  straight 
forward  interpretation  ;  and  his  well  known  change  of  that 
phraseology  being  by  his  own  assertion,  intended  to  indicate 
no  change  of  meaning  upon  his  part,  but  only  to  avoi(J 
possible  misconstruction. 


We  are  sometimes  bidden  to  believe,  and  not  to  reason, 
'There  is  a  sense  in  which  this  advice  is  sound,  as  when 
any  given  proposition  has  been  definitely  ascertained  to  be 
the  word  of  God.  In  such  cases  we  must  no  longer  reason, 
but  simply  believe.  But  to  apply  this  advice  to  the  prelim- 
inary investigations  of  which  I  have  spoken,  implies  a  con- 
fusion of  ideas.  Strictly,  Faith  and  Reason  are  not  in  con- 
flict. They  have  different  fields.  Eeason  ascertains,  1st, 
The  divine  origin  of  the  given  proposition ;  and  2nd,  com- 
prehends its  true  meaning.  Faith  accepts  what  is  thus  com- 
prehended and  ascertained  to  be  the  word  of  God.  It  is  the 
peculiarity  of  Faith  to  accept  truths  upon  testimony.  But 
in  order  to  do  this,  Faith  must  first  be  convinced  of  the 
rehability  of  the  witness.  This  latter  conviction  if  is  the 
office  of  Reason  to  accomplish.  There  may  be  impiessions, 
so-called  convictions,  outside  of  any  such  investigation, 
and  it  may  happen  that  they  are  true-  Such  impressions 
may  be  all,  that  for  the  time,  we  can  have.  The  child  at 
first  has  no  other.  But  an  intelligent  faith  in  christian 
mysteries  is  something  more  than  this.  It  requires  1st,  A 
witness  ;  2d,  That  the  witness  be  reliable  ;  and  3rd,  An 
intelligent  comprehension  of  what  the  witness  :ends  to 
disclose. 

Whatever  then  is  ascertained  to  be  the  testimony  of  God, 
must  be  at  once,  and  without  reserve  or  criticism,  accepted. 
But  Reason  must  first  ascertain  that  God  has  spoken,  and 
what  God  has  spoken,  Not  merely  the  wordf ,  but  their 
jneaniug.    It  must  comprehend  the  idea  reveled.  There 


23 


the  office  of  Beason  closes.    It  does  not  go  on  to  scrutinize 
the  details  or  consequences  of  what  is  revealed.    It  refuses 
to  do  this  because  it  is  Eeason.    But  it  is  the  idea  which  is 
comprehended,  and  not  the  mere  icovds.    And  Keason  must 
comprehend  the  idea,  before  Faith  can  accept  it.    In  the  face 
of  much  of  the  popular  religious  language  of  the  day,  I 
affirm  that  we  are  never  called  upon  to  believe,  either  what 
we  cannot  comprehend,  or  what  cannot  be  proved  ;  and 
furthermore,  that  we  cannot  believe  what  we  cannot  com- 
prehend.   The  facts  of  a  Trinity,  of  Freewill,  of  God's 
omnipresence,  we  can  comprehend  and  believe.    Their  quo 
modo,  lioiv  the  Trinity  can  consist  with  the'  Unity  of  the 
Godhead  ;  lioic  Freewill  can  consist  with  Divine  Providence 
and  Causality  ;  or  lioio  God  can  be  wholly  everywhere  ;;  we 
cannot  comprehend,  and  we  are  not  expected  to  believe 
either.    So  with  all  the  greater  mysteries  of  our  Eeligion. 
So  with  the  doctrine  under  consideratian.  We  are  not  called 
upon  to  believe  hoio  the  bread  and  wine  can  be  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  and  yet  remain  creature  bread  and    me. — 
Still  less  are  we  called  upon  to  believe,  what  is  no  Eevelation 
at  all,  but  only  a  logical  inference.  For  after  all,  the  advocate 
of  Transubstantiation  is  the  real  appellant  to  Eeason— and 
that  not  true  reason.    He  introduces  logical  inferences  into 
the  mid^'t  of  mysteries,  where  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  the 
logic  must  run  in  opposite  and  conflicting  directions,  accord- 
ing to  the  side  from  which  the  logician  starts.    And  as  this 
is  not  tru   Eeason,  so  neither  is  it  any  part  of  a  true  Faith 
to  accept,  as  parts  of  the  original  Eevelation,  the  inferences 
which  Eeason  may  thus  make.    It  was  the  error  of  th& 
Arians,  Sr"bellians,  Patripassians,  Entychians  and  Fatalists, 
of  old  an    's  the  error  now  of  the  advocate  of  Transubstan.- 
tiation,  t    equiie  faith  in  unrevealed  inferences  from  Eev- 
elation.   As^  that  because  Christ  was  begotten,  therefore  He 
had  a  beginning;  because  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  one, 
therefore  the  Father  suffered  upon  the  Cross  ;  or  because  the 
elements  ai.)  called  by  our  Lord  His  body  and  blood, 
therefore  the\  are  no  longer  bread  and  wine,  though  having 
still  all  the  accidents  of  bread  and  wine  ;  and  therefore  they 


24 


may  be  adored.  In  all  this,  Eeason  intrudes,  by  appending 
its  own  purely  logical  inferences,  and  so  far,  holds  up  a 
purely  human  creed  for  Faith.  But  it  must  fall  within  the 
province  of  Eeason  to  make  the  preliminary  investigation, 
which  ascertains  whether  or  not  the  grounds  upon  which 
the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation  or  any  other  doctrine  is 
offered,  are  consistent  with,  or  destructive  of  all  Eevelatioh ; 
whether  therefore  the  revelation  of  such  a  doctrine  is 
possible  ;  whether  God  has  made  any  revelation  upon  the 
subject ;  what  God  has  revealed  by  word  to  our  understand- 
ings, and  what  He  reveals  to  our  senses.  And  in  ascertain- 
ing the  written  or  oral  revelation,  to  regard  not  the  bare 
words  alone,  but  rather  the  idea  conveyed  by  them  ;  and  in 
doing  this  to  interpret  words  according  to  the  ordinary  laws 
of  language  ;  making  all  due  allowance  for  the  difference  to 
be  expected  between  the  revelation  of  a  command  or  duty, 
and  the  revelation  of  a  mystery  or  privilege.  The  amount 
of  all  which  is  the  enquiry,  what  does  God  really  tell  us  ? 
Thei, ^Reason  stays  herself,  and  Faith  steps  in,  and  accepts 
without  qualification  all  that  in  this  way  it  has  been  ascer- 
tained that  God  really  says. 

There  is  then,  no  conflict  between  Faith  and  true  Reason. 
They  operate  in  different  fields.  But  Reason  must  precede 
Faith,  and  Faith  can  only  believe  what  Reason  comprehends, 
and  ascertains  to  be  the  actual  word  of  God. 


,11..^.  C)75.6  Z99C  1850-79  v.  1  Ncs. 
-  '  '  1-25    P JSC  86 


tHIS  VOLOMK  nOSS  '«^T  CIRCULAT« 
OUTSIDE  Tfci!  liBR^M  BUILDIHO 


